M J Akbar, the well known Indian journalist, has written a book entitled, “Tinderbox – the past and future of Pakistan”. It is a scholarly exposition of Pakistan’s yesterday which gives hints for its tomorrow. Though no new information is available in the book, except some details about Pakistani terrorist groups and killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, it compels one to revisit and recapitulate the known facts in present context.

The psychological plight of Muslims of Indian sub-continent was first felt among Muslim gentry during latter part of eighteenth century when British East India Company was expanding its territory of control in the sub-continent. The final nail in the coffin of Muslim supremacy in the sub-continent was driven with the total collapse of Mughal Empire following 1857 mutiny. In previous 1000 years, though being minority, the Muslims were the ruling classes of Indian sub-continent. But coming of British rule in India under Empress Victoria suddenly made them feel about their small number in comparison with the vast majority of Hindus (a term which was still new then in present religious meaning)

The awareness of helplessness and insult after 1857, particularly when Bahadur Shah Zafar was exiled to Burma, was a bolt from the blue for Muslim leaders of the sub-continent who became utterly jittery. Lack of vision and foresight about the modern secular democracy made them nervous. The immediate post-1857 ‘pro-Hindu anti-Muslim’ policy of British administration also contributed to Muslim fear of being washed away by majority Hindus from socio-political arena of the sub-continent. In continuation of this, Muslims of the sub-continent became paranoid with the collapse of Caliphate in early nineteen twenties.

Sir Syed (Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College), Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi), Deoband (Dar-ul-Ulum), Ali Brothers, Tablighi Jamaat, Muslim League (after 1935 with Mr. Jinnah in the front) and Moududi (Jamaat-e-Islami) primarily influenced and shaped the psyche and action of majority members of Muslim community of the sub-continent between 1857 and 1947 and even beyond 1947 of Muslim Pakistanis. The essence of such influences was unidirectional, i.e. ‘Muslims are separate nation with a golden past’. Self serving distortion of history in Pakistan, which started with invasion of Sind by Muhammad bin Qasim in AD 712, has poisoned the minds of generations of Pakistanis towards India. All ruthless external Muslim invaders of Indian sub-continent are regarded in high esteem in Pakistan. (Author: This distortion of history allows Pakistanis to forget conveniently about the conversion of many of their forefathers and foremothers to Islam under duress. Such self denial has been successfully inculcated by the Pakistani Islamic contractors.)

In August 14-15 of 1947, Pakistan was curved out of the then undivided India. Before independence, the fierce Muslim League activities were highly visible in present Uttar Pradesh and Bihar which remained in independent India. Religious bigotry created two wings of Pakistan separated by more than 1000 miles. It was not simply a separation of space; the two wings of Pakistan were actually separate from each other in more aspects than single similarity of religion. It is interesting to note that some leaders of undivided Bengal like Shaheed Suhrawardy and Sarat Bose were briefly keen for a united Bengal as a separate country during pre-partition days’ turmoil. East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971 only to expose the hollowness of religion based “two nation theory”.

After independence, the ‘Pakistani Gray Wolf’ (Mr. Jinna) started losing control over Muslim League in Pakistan till death made him a photo framed ‘Quad-e-Azam’ there in 1948. After the death of Mr Jinnah, Moududi became the ‘God Father’ of Pakistan. The first dark cloud of Islamic terrorism was noticed in Pakistan during early nineteen fifties with attack on Ahmediyya Muslims. In the later part of Ayub’s rule, Islam was formally mixed with Pakistani politics and there has been no return from the downhill slide through ‘whisky lover’ Yahya Khan, ‘bogus socialist’ Z A Bhutto, ‘Allah’s General’ Zia-ul-Haq, ‘Daughter of East’ Benazir Bhutto, ‘Zia prodigy’ Nawaz Sharif, ‘Kargil architect’ Pervez Musharraf and ‘Mr ten per cent’ Zardari.

Jihad was the main offspring of partition in the sub-continent. The infant Jihad which was born with terrorist infiltration from tribal area of Pakistan to Kashmir valley during September 1947 became adult through innumerable proxy wars in Kashmir and elsewhere, as well as, Jihad in Afghanistan during past decades. During this whole period, the main supply line of Jihadis was Pakistan.

The power structure of Pakistan has been limited to Army, Industrialist-land owning politicians and bureaucrats in that order. Islam (with its 1400 years old Arabic culture) has been the soul of Pakistan not because the power structure is very religious but because it serves the political purpose best in Pakistan. Of late, ‘Good Taliban’ (Pakistani Taliban) has become the fourth pillar of Pakistani power structure.

Author’s remarks:

The vast majority of Muslims who could not migrate from Indian part to Pakistan and stayed back in independent India after August 1947 did not do so out of choice but out of compulsion; because either they could not afford to migrate or they were living in hinter land of India. Muslim League party died in independent India and overnight all Muslim League supporters of independent India become supporters of Indian National Congress.

The secular minded Muslims or those Muslims who were convinced about the futility of religion based nation did not migrate to Pakistan; but they were very few in number. Interestingly two Muslim League leaders, viz: M C Chaghla (Bombay) and M H Chaudhury (Assam) later became Cabinet Ministers in India as Members of Parliament of Congress party.

The litmus test of India’s secularism is the population growth of Indian Muslims after 1947 vis-à-vis steep population decline of non-Muslims in Pakistan. The peaceful and smooth transition of power between Congress, Janata Dal, different groups of political parties and BJP at Central level and between different local and national parties at State level, following elections in past decades is a testimony to the maturity of Indian democracy. I wonder what Sir Syed or Ahmed Raza Khan or Mr Jinna would have done against the current concept and practice of secular democracy in India. I am certain that because of partition, India could follow secularism and multi-party democracy; otherwise Muslims of supposed undivided India would not have allowed that as Islam is the antonym of ‘secularism’ and ‘multi-party democracy’.

It is irony that Muslims first practice their uniqueness and distinctiveness from others and latter criticize that they are not accepted by others. This problem with Muslims still persists in all parts of the world where Muslims are in minority including India. In Pakistan, Islamic contractors make every conscious effort to do away with anything remotely connected with Hindu culture of the sub-continent. In the process they simply ape old Arabic culture and remain neither here nor accepted there (as equal).

Recently six leaders of ‘Good Taliban’ have expressed allegiance towards ISIS and Vatican has welcomed homosexuals for the first time. This piece of information makes it clear that the mindset and action of religious power structure should change over the years, decades and centuries. Islam has failed to accept any change as thousands and thousands of semiliterate and literate Ulema, for their vested interest, have been imposing all the old and stagnant dogmas of Islam on all ‘Priestess’ Muslim communities across the world. The liberal and moderate Muslims do not raise voice against the Ulema and stagnant aspects of Islam en masse. This is unfortunate.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

17 Comments

Appreciating the time and effort you put into your
blog and detailed information you offer. It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t
the same unwanted rehashed information. Excellent read! I’ve bookmarked
your site and I’m including your RSS feeds to
my Google account.

You would have got all rights under the Sun to say “Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was the chief protagonist to divide the Bengalees! Of course with the support of several others like Lord Mountbatten, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, etc.” had Bangladesh been a secular country. Leaving aside the Paki era, Bangladesh has been independent since 44 years and what has been the condition of religious minorities there? Do you have any idea? Non-Muslim minorities would have similar fate today had Bengal remained united. So you will agree that Dr Mukherjee had foresight; right?

A.B.M. Shamsud Doula
December 21, 2014 at 9:30 pm

@Bhaskar,

So, all will confirm that Dr. Dhyama Prasad Mukherjee was the chief protagonist to devide the Bengalees! Of course with the support of several others like Lord Mountbatten, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, etc.

@M. Huq,
I won’t mind changing my ‘adjective’ a little for BD & call it a ‘bottomless basket’ even after 34 years of independent governance. If you still insist to call BD a successful State, then it is your prerogative. But for Paki, if you say that it has a ‘functioning government’, then I doubt your knowledge about the independent functionality of Paki government. :-Y

M. Huq
November 8, 2014 at 7:45 am

The adjective “failed state” should not be applied to any country without a good reason. I think a failed state is a country that is not controlled by a centralized government. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have functioning governments. In case of Pakistan, the government has very tenuous control over some limited regions. The government of Bangladesh has effective control over the entire country.

I find Muktar Ahmed Mukul’s comments somewhat amusing and depressing, particularly with regard to the partition of India. He seems to have apportioned blame on Britain for the partition of India. He must have read Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s ‘India Wins Freedom’, where it was quite clearly stated, despite AIC’s (including Maulana’s) best efforts, Mohammad Ali Jinnah frustrated all efforts to keep India undivided and win freedom. When religious virus had been planted with vigour and with political motive by the proponents of the Two Nation Theory, it was absolutely impossible to keep the subcontinent together. So, it is blatantly wrong to say Britishers artificially divided the subcontinent.

Another point is that how and why could he expect that the troubles these three countries made (race riots, conflicts between these protagonists) and the UN would come to sort it out. These countries are sovereign independent countries, they got independence because they claimed to be able to run their countries themselves. Is Muktar Ahmed Mukul saying that they have failed to run their countries themselves and now seeking intervention from the UK or the West?

Muktar Ahmed Mukul
October 26, 2014 at 5:56 pm

In any case :Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had foresight which we don’t find in Jinnah & other ML leaders. Maulana Azad stayed with Congress till death as he was against division of India. Though an orthodox (and very learned) Muslim, he was not a bigot. Maulana Azad knew that Muslims would be main victims of partition of Indian sub-continent and he was 100 per cent correct. One third of Muslims of the sub-continent is minority in India and other two one thirds are in two failed States (Paki & BD)respectively. Don’t make a “Bechaaraa” out of Maulana Azad.

Sir,
Do you really mean that proposal of United Bengal during 1946 did not come true for Shyama Prasad Mukherjee alone? No, you surely don’t. The picture was much more complex. That year (1946) became notorious for great Calcutta killing also which was sposored by Indian Muslim League. For Muslim League, the proposal of United Bengal was a win win situation. You know what I mean? Shyama Prasad did not want to offer the United Bengal on a platter to Muslim League. Subsequent developments in East Pakistan/Bangladesh tell volume about that.

Sir,
Thank you for your comments. Are you a Life Member of ‘The Bengali Academy, Dhaka’ or ‘The Bangla Academy, Dhaka’?

A.B.M. Shamsud Doula
October 26, 2014 at 11:16 am

With reference to above various comments I am pleased to say that recently I have sent my book entitled: RABINDRANATH TAGORE; NOBEL PRIZE FOR LITERATURE IN 1913; AND THE BRITISH RAJ: SOME UNTOLD STORIES, which contains the following paragraphs:

QUOTE

:Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was a significantly important Muslim leader of the All India National Congress. But he, being a minority Muslim leader of the All India National Congress was too insignificant in exercising his power and influence in the ultimate political decision of the All Indian National Congress in 1946 on the partition of India. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad later became Education Minister under the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who also simultaneously appointed Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as his Home Minister.

Mahatma Gandhi’s one undivided India concept failed under the British pressure similarly it is notable that lord Curzon’s partition of Bengal policy of 1905 to divide the Muslims and the Hindus of Bengal was reintroduced in 1946 with the help of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the President of Hindu Mahasabha ignoring the proposed United Bengal supported by leading personalities like the Prime Minister of Bengal Shahid Suhrawardy belonging to the All India Muslim League and leading personalities like Sharat Chandra Bose (brother of the great anti-colonial Bengalee leader Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose) and Kiran Sankar Roy, both belonging to the All India National Congress. The Britishers partitioned India and went away leaving their invisible spirit of ‘divided rule policy’ which led to the killing of more than ten million people since 1946 and dividing millions of families of the Indian sub-continent. But the beneficiaries of the partitioned India never looked at this humanitarian issue even after about seventy years. This is a black chapter in the history of governance of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. There was never a joint meeting or consultation on the subject comprising of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Nor the United Nations ever looked at this sad problems arising out of the killing, looting and burning of millions. The United Nations and the big Western Powers shed much crocodile’s tears even with 10% calamities in other parts west of Indian-Subcontinent. Only God knows if any such feelings will ever be coming up in the minds of the political and social leaders of these three artificially partitioned countries by the Britishers.

Sir,
I agree with the remark of Mr Jiten Roy when he says “I see sudden outburst of cultural exhibitionism in many Muslims in the USA.” Leaving aside USA, this cultural exhibitionism has been on rise since past two decades in UK, Canada, Pakistan, India & Bangladesh. Of course this does not mean that all Muslims are like that.

I tend to disagree with your statement wherein you say “But it is not true that it is mandatory in Islam to conform to arab culture.” As I understand, the Arabic cultural exhibitionism is justified as ‘Sunnah’ and no Muslim can tell anything against ‘Sunnah’. That makes exhibitionism mandatory. Those who don’t follow ‘Sunnah’ are looked at with comtempt by Ulema (super prists of Islam).

You have remarked “Anybody who thinks one day the entire world will be Muslim or Christian is living in a fool’s paradise.” Paradise itself is a foolish concept. But to strive for making the world an Islamic one by tens of terrorist groups (justified by Jihadi zeal) is a real concern for all peace loving people.

M. Huq
October 16, 2014 at 4:23 am

@Jiten Roy, It is true some Muslims wear arab style attires and imitate arab ways of living. But it is not true that it is mandatory in Islam to conform to arab culture. Bulk of the Muslim population assimilate very well with local societies here in USA. I know over 50 Muslim professionals in Delaware, many of them go to Friday prayers regularly. If you happen to meet one of these people, you will not be tell whether the person is a Muslim, a Hindu, or of any other religious faith. Anybody who thinks one day the entire world will be Muslim or Christian is living in a fool’s paradise.

Jiten Roy
October 16, 2014 at 3:24 am

The distinctive Arabian cultural identity separates Muslims from any other people. I believe, such cultural identity is mandatory in Islam, which could keep Muslims away from assimilation in other societies around the world.

I see sudden outburst of cultural exhibitionism in many Muslims in the USA, especially people from Bangladesh-Pakistani regions. It appears that – these people are deliberately trying to make their presence known to others around them in the society. I am not sure, if they do it out of pride or out of arrogance. Frankly, I think, these people firmly believe in the world under Muslim dominance one day. The question is – how to get there. Is it ISIS-way or through demographic change? First option is hopeless, the second option could take eternity. Good luck!